EersSkins05 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 What I find interesting is that in polls I've seen, Hillary is drawing a majority of black voters (even over Obama), particularly because of Bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 a) There's nothing even within the spirit of the Constitution that would disallow a President to have a Congressman as a spouse. You're assuming that a spouse wouldn't be able to check the other spouse's power. Honestly, do you think that certain senators' blind adherence to the White House is any different from husband/wife? They're already in bed together metaphorically. The only difference is that Bill and Hillary would be in bed together literally. Personally, I don't think Slick Willie can take a pee in the urinal without the prior approval of the Junior Senator from the State of New York. As POTUS, there is absolutely no way that Bill could even think about voting against whatever position the WENCH has on an issue. While the Senators of the same party as the POTUS tend to stand by their MAN, they don't always act the way he would like. They never have. This is one case where I don't believe there would be ANY level of true conscience shown by Bill Clinton. He'd simply be the same puppet with his Wife's hand shoved up his backside that he's always been in my opinion. You're friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton? No, thankfully. What I meant was in the years that I have seen and known them on the political stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Yeah, unlike the dems that they just re-elect instead.Face it ethics and politicians are incompatible. :laugh: And that's why it's so ridiculous that the Repubs tried to monpolize the moral high ground. The Dems never tried to stake claim as the morally superior party, that's why it's going to bite the Repubs in the ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 And that's why it's so ridiculous that the Repubs tried to monpolize the moral high ground. The Dems never tried to stake claim as the morally superior party, that's why it's going to bite the Repubs in the ass. So you are saying the Dems have no morals? or is it just the superior part? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Has anyone ever studied the etymology of Republicans... I just noticed this re= repeat, again pub= bar, tavern, watering hole L= Roman numeral for fifty I= me, myself, thinking of number one can= bathroom, schlitz, cheap drink So, republican can be defined as an alcoholic egoist vomitting fifty times in the can. No wonder they're called the re-pubbing cans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 If the Clintons live in the White House, i seriously think it should be a reality TV show in the mold of the Jessica Simpson/Nick Lachey MTV one. ESPECIALLY if Bill is a Senator. Who wouldnt watch that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 If the Clintons live in the White House, i seriously think it should be a reality TV show in the mold of the Jessica Simpson/Nick Lachey MTV one. ESPECIALLY if Bill is a Senator.Who wouldnt watch that? I would only watch the show if it is Bill, Hillary couldn't do anything bad since she will be the prez. For the show to really work Bill has to be unemployed and doing what ever he wants, sort of like Homer on a daily basis :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyinO Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 That's pretty funny. Unfortunately for the Repubs though, they no longer can claim ethical superiority whatsoever, far too many of them in jail. When will people stop with the finger pointing and tit-for-tat arguments. "Such and such member of party x did this, which is way more worser (i know) than what such and such member of party y did, so there." Both dominant parties have been running amuck for awhile, and it is groupthink like this that allows them to continue to do so. Don't identify with any party, identify with yourself. Sorry, this has nothing to do with the original post, it is just that thinking like this irks me to no end. And BTW, if Hillary wins, we are all screwed. balance our books Perot in 08 :laugh: can i finish, can i finish, can i finish :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmy Smith Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Zero chance in hell of this ever happening. This is a "story" being pushed by right-wingers, based on no facts whatsoever, just to try and smear the Clintons as being power-hungry. First of all, can you imagine the conflicts-of-interest that would occur if this happened? The President married to a Senator? The Clintons are already going to spark pseudo-controversy, no matter what they do. They wouldn't touch an idea like this with a ten-foot pole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 And that's why it's so ridiculous that the Repubs tried to monpolize the moral high ground. The Dems never tried to stake claim as the morally superior party, that's why it's going to bite the Repubs in the ass. "Vote Democrat. We don't even try to hold ourselves to a higher standard." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 OK, here's the deal. We promise no more Bushes in national politics, in exchange for no more Clintons. Do we have a deal? PLEASE tell me we have a deal. :doh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curlinga Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Why would Bill want this? Wouldn't being a Senator be a demotion after being POTUS? Seems that he can do so much more as a Former President than he ever could as a Senator...case in point being the joint effort with Bush Sr. to raise funds for Katrina victims. Amy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 OK, here's the deal. We promise no more Bushes in national politics, in exchange for no more Clintons.Do we have a deal? PLEASE tell me we have a deal. :doh: :laugh: I'm in, where's the petition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I'll second it. Bye Bye Jeb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 OK, here's the deal. We promise no more Bushes in national politics, in exchange for no more Clintons.Do we have a deal? PLEASE tell me we have a deal. :doh: :laugh: How about you throw in Brownback, Cheney, Ashcroft and James Watt's. We'll throw in Ted Kennedy, Joe Kennedy, Jannet Reno, and Cheney's daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 What is this, jury selection? "Each party will voir dire each candidate for national office. Each party will receive 4 challenges which require no reason." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.